#Arbitration and Conciliation Act

A Section 16 jurisdictional objection decision constitutes an interim award challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The MP HC ruling lets parties challenge such jurisdictional orders, affecting arbitration under the Act.

The Delhi HC held that a prima facie case under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act warrants interim relief, directing arbitration and restraining the respondent from dealing with the sub-leased premises, aiding landlords to secure interim measures.

The Delhi HC held that Section 9 interim measures continue until the arbitral tribunal is constituted, after which the matter shifts to Section 17 and the tribunal may modify or vacate them, clarifying shift of interim relief from courts to tribunals.

The Delhi HC held that parties' consensus and an award lacking reasoning justify remand under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The ruling clarifies that mutual consent plus deficient awards triggers remission, affecting arbitrators and contracting parties in future disputes.

The Karnataka HC held that where a contract limits relief to extension of time only, an arbitral award cannot grant monetary claims for parapet works, revised rates or reinforcement quantities, and it upheld the denial of a time-related costs claim for lack of proof of quantum.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the arbitration agreement overrides the statutory venue of the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for post-award extensions under Section 29A. This decision limits parties’ ability to seek extensions at the WBMSEFC, reinforcing the primacy of contractual forum selection in MSME arbitrations.

The Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order directing the appellant to deposit Rs 3.5 crore under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, clarifying that courts may grant interim security to a party who ultimately loses the arbitration where equity demands it. This ruling expands the scope of Section 9, allowing preservation of assets even when the applicant’s substantive claim is weak, affecting all parties seeking interim protection during arbitration.

Karnataka High Court ruled that the 30-day window to move a Section 33 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned, even in statutory arbitrations under the National Highways Act. It also clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such arbitrations. The decision tightens timelines for government-linked infrastructure disputes.

Bombay HC holds that commercial disputes involving fraud remain arbitrable unless the fraud affects public interest or involves serious criminal offenses. The court set aside the arbitrator's jurisdictional objection, emphasizing that mere allegations of fraud or third-party involvement do not render a dispute non-arbitrable under the Vidya Drolia test.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Court Receiver appointed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act remains in equitable custody until the substantive dispute between the parties is finally settled, regardless of a subsequent consent award. This ensures asset preservation aligns with the arbitration’s ultimate outcome, affecting parties relying on interim receiverships in complex partnership or property disputes.

Karnataka High Court holds that an arbitral tribunal's failure to consider RA Bills showing 18% GST inclusion in non-tendered works (valued at ₹9.65 crores) constitutes patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The ruling reinforces that tribunals must account for tax implications in contract disputes, impacting construction and commercial arbitration.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a party’s refusal to complete procedural formalities-like signing bank documents or filing partnership forms-after a final arbitral award is issued constitutes an unlawful obstruction of enforcement. This holding reinforces that the finality of arbitral awards cannot be undermined by passive non-cooperation, even absent a Section 34 challenge, and binds all parties to act in good faith to give effect to the award.

Bombay HC rules that mere financial hardship or commercial benefit from streaming does not justify interim payment under Section 9 when contractual performance remains disputed. The arbitral tribunal must first adjudicate contested obligations before interim relief can be granted.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Memorandum of Understanding lacking a No Objection Certificate from the Collector and formal registration cannot create any vested interest in government land for redevelopment, even if partial payment has been made. This clarifies that mere intent to enter a future development agreement does not equate to enforceable contractual rights under the Arbitration Act, impacting developers and housing societies relying on informal arrangements.

The Bombay High Court has affirmed that partners retain their statutory right under partnership law to inspect books and records even when arbitration is pending, and an arbitral tribunal may enforce this right under Section 17. This ruling reinforces that commercial transparency cannot be withheld under the guise of procedural delay, protecting minority partners from information asymmetry in ongoing disputes.